Debates of June 11th, 1996

First Ministers' Conference

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as far as manpower training is concerned, a general framework was proposed and very well received across Canada.

I understand this may bother the official opposition, since it does not want to see the Canadian federation work better all the time. On the contrary, Bloc members want to break up the country. That is why we will never have their co-operation in finding concrete solutions that will help Canadians receive better services from their governments.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, also regarding the agenda of the first ministers' conference, the government says it is willing to make proposals to create jobs for young people.

How does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain that, on the one hand, Ottawa says it is withdrawing from the manpower sector, including for youth, and, on the other hand, it is indicating its intention to remain present in this area?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly normal for the Government of Canada to want to maintain a presence in a many areas where the provinces may play a very important role.

To be sure, Canada is made up of provinces whose resources are quite different, and whose programs are not always similar. All we are saying is that we are there to represent the interests of all Canadians, including young Canadians. However, we want to recognize and respect the jurisdiction of the provinces in every case.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the letter addressed to its provincial counterparts, the federal government also states its intention to remain present in the social security sector. However, with the Canada social transfer, Ottawa is withdrawing its financial support from that sector. Again, the new federal way of doing things is to establish national standards, while stopping financial contributions to programs, without any compensation.

Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs finally recognize that, while he is talking about partnership, his government's true intention is to reduce the role of the provinces to that of mere subcontractors of federal policies?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in Mr. Martin's last budget, it is indicated that-

[The Speaker]

We usually refer to ourselves by our titles rather than our names.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The last budget of the Minister of Finance mentioned a minimum amount of $11.1 billion for the Canada social transfer. We are committed to allowing the provinces to do long term planning as regards their budget. We made this commitment in spite of current economic difficulties. This is a first for a federal government. One would have a hard time finding a similar commitment by a federal government in another federation.

If opposition members looked at other federations, they would realize that Canadian provinces have more power and responsibilities than the German Länders, the Swiss cantons and the American states. Our federation is one of the most decentralized ones in the world, and it allows each province to express its own way of being Canadian. This is what Canada is about.

The Constitution

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first the Constitution was on the agenda for the first ministers meeting in June, then it was off, and now it is back on. Canadians are not sure what to make of this constitutional game of ping-pong the Liberals are playing but it would help if the Prime Minister actually had a plan for national unity. It does seem a little bizarre that they are trying to sandwich serious constitutional negotiations between the morning doughnuts and the afternoon Beaujolais.

Will there be substantive discussions on the Constitution at the first ministers conference, or is this simply a cynical political ploy to avoid doing what has to be done in April 1997?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the letter was crystal clear regarding that subject.

It is not clear whether we have met the commitment under section 49. Our discussions on June 21 would permit us to consider how we might move forward in the search for an amending formula that would find wide approval from Canadians. The purpose is to

be sure that we meet the commitment of section 49. Once this is done, we want a process that will lead us to a better amending formula for all Canadians.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what is obvious is it seems the Prime Minister is trying to change his well deserved reputation of "don't just do something but stand there". It is also painfully obvious that this government will be presenting the premiers with constitutional proposals that have not had any public input.

The Prime Minister's so-called plans for national unity are supposedly contained within the speech from the throne, but the throne speech also promises public input. If next week's constitutional negotiations are going to be more than a political photo-op, where is the public input? What happened to the Canadian people?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the agenda is full of good things for Canadians. Whether it is the economic union, the social union, or the rebalancing of the federation, we have a full list of very important topics that the first ministers will discuss seriously. In the end, we will have an improved federation.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech should be positioned beside a throne where its paper could be of much use.

The Prime Minister promised in his throne speech that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country. Apparently that does not extend to such things as the Constitution or the amending formula.

The objections of the premiers of Quebec, Alberta and B.C. are well documented. The Canadian people apparently have been excluded from the constitutional process. The Prime Minister has slipped the Constitution on to the agenda and has hoped that nobody would notice.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will Canadians get to see the Prime Minister's constitutional proposals before he presents them to the premiers, or will Canadians simply have to wait while he does it behind closed doors like Brian Mulroney?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose is exactly the reverse. We have an open process to discuss a better amending formula for all Canadians. This is the purpose. The first ministers will decide. We hope to have the collaboration of the hon. member.

Securities

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week in the House the minister gave us to understand that he intended to disregard the unanimous will of the national assembly in pursuit of his plan to create a Canadian securities commission. He said that in so doing he was responding to the request of the business community, when this same community was letting it be known that very day in Quebec City that it did not support his plan.

How can the minister still claim to have the support of the Quebec business community, when the Montreal Stock Exchange, the Mouvement Desjardins, the Barreau du Québec, the Quebec section of the association of securities brokers, numerous firms including Ogilvy Renault, the Investors Group, McCarthy Tétrault, and many others, have said they are against the plan?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what I said, and I repeat it again, is that it is most certainly at the request of several provinces and of the business community, including large companies in Montreal that issue shares, Montreal brokerage firms with national offices, which asked us to look at the situation. We are examining the possibility. It is at the request of the business community, at the request of the provinces.

Furthermore, I would ask the member the following question: If the Canadian business community requests it, if the Montreal business community requests it, should we ignore the fact that it makes very good sense to rationalize the system in Canada in order to be more competitive internationally?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition asks the questions and the government is supposed to answer. Until now, the list of those in Quebec who oppose the plan is growing daily.

I would ask him the following question: Will the minister admit that a Canadian securities commission would, in the opinion of many, concentrate all Canada's financial expertise in Toronto and thus reduce all other financial centres, including Montreal, to mere branch offices of the Toronto head office, without real powers? That is the reality.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, pardon me for thinking that perhaps the Bloc's finance critic had an opinion. But if he is asking questions without having a real opinion, that makes the debate a bit difficult.

I can tell you that there is no question of concentrating everything in one place. The point is to make it possible for the Montreal, Vancouver, Alberta and Toronto stock exchanges to compete on an equal footing with the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ.

With the globalization of world markets, integration is becoming very important in order to give Quebecers and Canadians a solid foundation on which to build. That is what we wish to do, that is the vision for the nineties. We have left the sixties behind.

Justice

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice said that he would not pass legislation based on individual cases, yet today we see that he wants to do exactly that by splitting murderers into categories in section 745 changes. Instead of doing what Canadians want, an outright scrapping of section 745, the minister plans to just modify it slightly. Commit two murders and you are out of the running. Commit only one murder and you have a chance at early parole.

What is the difference? Why should any first degree murderer, regardless of the number of people he kills, get early release?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation I will table later today in the House of Commons will propose changes to section 745. The bill will speak for itself.

As to the difference between those who take one life or more than one life, the changes will introduce significant improvements to the section and the way it operates. It will ensure that only the most appropriate and deserving cases are given consideration under the section. It will also respond to concerns from victims groups that they not be required to participate in jury hearings at the sole option of the offender. It will provide a mechanism to ensure that cases that are brought before a jury have a reasonable prospect of success.

If the hon. member is not able to distinguish the difference between those who take more than one life and those who take one life, I say that she is overlooking a fundamental feature. The fact of the matter is that the sentencing policy for murder in this country should reflect a difference between those who take more than one life and those who take only one.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe that the minister would be able to tell a victim: "I am sorry, the murderer who killed your daughter or your son just murdered one person, so it is okay". That is shameful and is exactly the reason it just does not work.

There is no justification for these kinds of changes. The minister said the bill will speak for itself. What about the thousands of victims across the country who are speaking for themselves and calling for an outright abolition and repeal of section 745?

What we are hearing is that one murder is okay and two murders are bad. Murder is murder, no matter how many people are killed and murderers should not get early release, period.

Instead of introducing these arbitrary half measures, why does the justice minister not simply scrap section 745 altogether and make all first degree murderers serve their entire sentence? Why not?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the proposals we will make are based on rational, logical and appropriate distinctions in the law. The taking of any life is not only a tragedy for the victim's family, but it is the most serious crime in the code and it is punished accordingly.

For the last 20 years the Criminal Code sentences for murder have included section 745, have included recourse to a community jury after 15 years. We are going to propose changes that will narrow the availability of that recourse to the most deserving cases and ensure that it is only available in those cases. In addition, we are saying that for those who commit multiple or serial murders, it will not be available at all.

I very much hope the hon. member and her party will join with us in strengthening in the name of victims and in the name of justice the provisions of section 745 of the Criminal Code.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during an investigation, Canadian police forces may request information from foreign authorities. The Department of Justice is then responsible for forwarding these inquiries to the foreign authorities.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell us whether it is standard procedure within his department to send letters to foreign authorities containing clear accusations against a Canadian citizen, when his department has no proof of that individual's guilt?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member is referring to the process of police investigations.

Police conduct investigations but when any police force in the country wishes to make inquiries of a foreign authority or a foreign government, the practice is to come to the international assistance group of the Department of Justice to communicate that request to the foreign government. In those circumstances, the lawyers and the senior officials of the international assistance group meet with the police and determine that there is a reasonable basis for taking the next step in the investigation, which is to ask a foreign authority for assistance. Once that is done, then the lawyers in the international assistance group work with the police in formulating that request and send it abroad.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if it is a possibility that his department sends letters containing unproven charges merely to ensure that the foreign authorities will accept the inquiry being submitted to them?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize that in this instance and in cases of this kind, we are talking about police investigations. The issue is not whether the person under investigation can be shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as would be the case if they were charged, tried and it was left to a court to decide. That is not the test.

If that were the test very few police investigations would be carried on. At any given moment if the police officer was stopped and asked whether he now had sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and the officer said no but he wished to proceed to the next step, if we were to deny that at that point, we would never complete a police investigation.

The issue is not whether guilt can be established beyond a reasonable doubt at that stage; the issue is whether it is reasonable to take the next step in the investigation. That is the approach which is taken by the international assistance group when it has asked the police for help in communicating requests for help to other governments. That is the practice we follow.